> On 13 May 2016, at 17:24, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Well, one potential issues is that there may be projects which have
>> > already coded in 9.6 checks for feature support.
>> I suspect that won't be an issue (I never heard of it being for 7.5,
>> which was released as 8.0 - but is smattered all over pgAdmin 3 for
>> example) - largely because in such apps we're almost always checking
>> for a version greater than or less than x.y.
>> I imagine the bigger issue will be apps that have been written
>> assuming the first part of the version number is only a single digit.
> If they are, they are already broken by design. But more to the point, unless 
> you're arguing for *never* changing to 10.0, that's not really something that 
> should decide when we do it, because they will break.
> We have provided multiple ways to check this. For example, we've had 
> PQserverVersion() since forever which returns an integer that you can just 
> compare. We have never claimed that it would be single digit in any of the 
> fields (first, second *or* third). I honestly don't care at all if those 
> applications break.
> (We would, however, have a problem to go above 100 in all fields *except* the 
> first one, since the integer uses a two-digit representation for each)

Oh, I don't care about such code. Just opining that it's a likely issue 
somewhere - and if so, it should be up to users to fix their apps.

Reply via email to